|
FAO: People who actually study economics (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I tend to read more praises than rebuttals to his work. |
Yeah I was talking about my own awesome work back in the day rather than any “official” crits.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I remember you're quite an anti-Hayek yourself, but I wonder if you could tell me what your criticism is against his ideas. |
I’ll see if I have any old papers lying around, but to be honest I’ve really only got images mostly, feelings. From memory I disagreed with the fundamental philosophical assertions regarding social/economic/political organisation he favoured. But of course I was a Marxist when I was reading the road to serfdom (or whatever it was called) so maybe I’d have a different view now. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Yeah I was talking about my own awesome work back in the day rather than any “official” crits. |
:p
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I’ll see if I have any old papers lying around, but to be honest I’ve really only got images mostly, feelings. From memory I disagreed with the fundamental philosophical assertions regarding social/economic/political organisation he favoured. But of course I was a Marxist when I was reading the road to serfdom (or whatever it was called) so maybe I’d have a different view now. |
"The Road to Serfdom", that's the one I read as well.
I tend to be quite receptive to his ideas. In linguistics, they're wonderful. However, when it comes to economics, I still don't know if he's got anything to say about the emergence of monopolies. Not good. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| The typical Austrian school assertion is that monopolies are only possible because of government. Obviously that’s complete bull. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Obviously that’s complete bull. |
And I must agree :( |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Dear people who study about money more than you deal with it, |
Oh well, that's me out. :toothless |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
The typical Austrian school assertion is that monopolies are only possible because of government. Obviously that’s complete bull. |
Well...
whatever
Regardless of how they form, monopolies are actually great for the economy FOR SERIOUS |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Oh well, that's me out. :toothless |
:stongue: :stongue:
| quote: | Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
Regardless of how they form, monopolies are actually great for the economy FOR SERIOUS |
i think it depends entirely on the context. ask your average consumer and they may love microsoft windows etc, but ask a supplier how they fare with walmart or woolworths and their story is likely to be different. |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
i'm just talking from an economic perspective.
in fact, i think this view point is...a little bit aggressive and perhaps even outdated but the argument is this:
monopolies can actually be great for the economy because, in order to retain their monopoly status, monopolies must constantly innovate (of course this isn't necessarily true, but in practice it often is) so they drive future economic growth through technological change. |
|
|
| Alero50 |
I think competition would encourage more technological productivity.
And a monopoly can control the pace of the improvement of their products. i.e. (not perfect, yeah?) Iphone 4 to 4s and Ipad 2 to what they release next, I forgot the name. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I hear about Hayek and Keynes all the time, yet nearly every single economics student I know is completely oblivious to their existence. What gives? |
Having studied economics, I can tell you that I'm not particularly surprised. Economics (in Australia at least) is generally taught inflexibly, in the form of neat, incontrovertible models, with little discussion surrounding how these models were arrived at or what criticisms might be leveled against them. If you want to dig deeper into the "philosophy" of economics (if that's the right word) and learn about its thinkers, you need to choose classes that specifically focus on, say, the history of economics or on heterodox economic models. If your only ambition within the economics field is to land a job pushing papers in a bank or a finance company, it would be pretty easy to earn a degree in the field without ever hearing about Keynes, and almost certainly not about Hayek.
In practice, Keynes is taught implicitly in the core subjects, because his ideas don't stray too far from economic orthodoxy (indeed, they were economic orthodoxy for decades), involve relatively simple mathematics and because - frankly - they are mostly correct. Hayek is a little more marginal, probably because he was less methodical or systematic with his theorizing, and this doesn't lend itself to the simplicity of economic modelling (in economics, simplicity is always preferred to reality). He was also critical of certain foundations of classical-economic theory (such as equilibrium-point theories, one thing he was almost certainly correct about) which probably never endeared him to the establishment economists. In any case, I think his influence on the trajectory of economics was rather more indirect than that of Keynes, and I'm not sure if any economy has ever been guided by the tenets of the Austrian School.
| quote: | | I know there should be enough criticism against their ideas by now, but have they become outdated already? |
Hayek's legacy lives on in the monetarist school, but I don't think he left many direct intellectual descendants (pace Ron Paul). "The Road to Serfdom" will live on as an influential text, if only within the demographic of self-entitled little s who would rather watch the world burn than to see a single, red cent be spent in aid of society.
Keynesianism suffered a blow to its integrity with the stagflationary period of 1973-1980, but it's always been unfair to blame this malaise on Keynesian theory rather than other, exogenous factors like the oil shock (it's no surprise that those most likely to blame the economic problems on Keynesian theory were those most beholden to laissez-faire, monetarist economics and who simply resented any kind of external influence on the markets). I think the latest economic crisis has rejuvenated Keynesian thinking somewhat (most solutions to the economic crisis I've read have advocated a large governmental role in the recovery), albeit in the guise of "neo-Keynesianism". Whether you consider such ideas "outdated" or not, depends on the extent to which your brain has been rotted by the dogmas of laissez-faire economics. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
OMG renegade!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :crazy:
hope things with you are good. i hope that ninja brain of yours is being put to good use. post more, you no-doubt busy bastard. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Having studied economics, I can tell you that I'm not particularly surprised. Economics (in Australia at least) is generally taught inflexibly, in the form of neat, incontrovertible models, with little discussion surrounding how these models were arrived at or what criticisms might be leveled against them. |
Oh, this sounds familiar to me. Linguistics is usually taught the same way, although the constant bickering between rival theories makes it a bit harder for instructors to achieve this goal :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
If you want to dig deeper into the "philosophy" of economics (if that's the right word) and learn about its thinkers, you need to choose classes that specifically focus on, say, the history of economics or on heterodox economic models. If your only ambition within the economics field is to land a job pushing papers in a bank or a finance company, it would be pretty easy to earn a degree in the field without ever hearing about Keynes, and almost certainly not about Hayek. |
I guess this explains why they had never heard of them, and their puzzlement whenever they saw the sadness on my face :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
In practice, Keynes is taught implicitly in the core subjects, because his ideas don't stray too far from economic orthodoxy (indeed, they were economic orthodoxy for decades), involve relatively simple mathematics and because - frankly - they are mostly correct. Hayek is a little more marginal, probably because he was less methodical or systematic with his theorizing, and this doesn't lend itself to the simplicity of economic modelling (in economics, simplicity is always preferred to reality). He was also critical of certain foundations of classical-economic theory (such as equilibrium-point theories, one thing he was almost certainly correct about) which probably never endeared him to the establishment economists. In any case, I think his influence on the trajectory of economics was rather more indirect than that of Keynes, and I'm not sure if any economy has ever been guided by the tenets of the Austrian School. |
Really? Given the popularity of the Austrian school, I always assumed it had some impact on economical theory.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Hayek's legacy lives on in the monetarist school, but I don't think he left many direct intellectual descendants (pace Ron Paul). "The Road to Serfdom" will live on as an influential text, if only within the demographic of self-entitled little s who would rather watch the world burn than to see a single, red cent be spent in aid of society. |
But it's for a good cause! The invisible hand of the market will pull poor people out of their misery... and take them to a land where they'll remain invisible! :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Keynesianism suffered a blow to its integrity with the stagflationary period of 1973-1980, but it's always been unfair to blame this malaise on Keynesian theory rather than other, exogenous factors like the oil shock (it's no surprise that those most likely to blame the economic problems on Keynesian theory were those most beholden to laissez-faire, monetarist economics and who simply resented any kind of external influence on the markets). I think the latest economic crisis has rejuvenated Keynesian thinking somewhat (most solutions to the economic crisis I've read have advocated a large governmental role in the recovery), albeit in the guise of "neo-Keynesianism". Whether you consider such ideas "outdated" or not, depends on the extent to which your brain has been rotted by the dogmas of laissez-faire economics. |
That was instructive. Thanks, mate! :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Oh well, that's me out. :toothless |
:stongue:
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hope things with you are good. i hope that ninja brain of yours is being put to good use. post more, you no-doubt busy bastard. |
+1. I could also update your blog every now and then, and feed subscribers would most definitely read it ;) |
|
|
|
|
